Understanding secondary school athlete motivation and success: Implications for coaching behaviours Daniel Stamp Lecturer in Sport Psychology, Athlete Identity and Well-being PENZ Conference 2013

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Objectives Discuss and debate Motivation and coaching behaviours The do’s and don’ts, the rights the wrongs, the (mis)understandings Your experiences Potential directions

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 1.What do you understand by the term motivation? 2.Do you know what motivates your athletes? 3.What constitutes ‘success’ for your athletes? >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Theoretical Frameworks  Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000)  Autonomy  Competence  Relatedness  Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1980)  explains how intrinsic motivation can be affected by interpersonal strategies such as rewards and feedback. >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Amotivation Extrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation Low self-determination High self-determination Amotivation External regulation Introjected Identified Integrated Intrinsic Threshold of autonomy

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Intrinsic motivation has been identified as an essential component for athletes to function optimally. Enhanced intrinsic motivation of an athlete brings with it benefits, including improved perceived competence, positive emotions, a greater need to perform the task, less chance of athlete burnout and greater well-being. >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 1.What is your coaching style? 2.What coaching styles motivate athletes? 3.What is the best coaching style? >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Autonomy-supportive coaching  Does not advocate the use of pressure and demands.  Offers their athletes a clear rationale for tasks  Takes the perspective of their athlete  Encourages choice within the rules and limits  Promotes independent problem-solving opportunities to their athletes (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Provide a training rationale  Set training limits and rules  Pursuit of a task becomes meaningful to athlete  feel as though they have initiated behaviour  ownership over their actions A reason for an athlete’s motivation being unaffected by their coach not providing a rationale for training, was because they trusted their coach’s training prescription without it needing to be explained to them. >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Initiative taking opportunities  Allow athletes to be self-sufficient  Don’t limit an athlete’s creativity  Don’t restrict independency  Provide opportunities to have an element of control  Allow athletes to make decisions on what and how they use their time (Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007) >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY “that performance was good, but that is how the task should always be performed.” >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Controlling coaching  Surveillance (not monitoring)  Guilt-inducing criticisms  Overt control (physical and psychological) >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Majority of research supports the proposal that an autonomy supportive style of coaching has the most benefit on an athlete’s intrinsic motivation However, Western culture in large remains dismissive to the research and upholds the more traditional use of controlling coaching behaviours. Even if a coach strongly endorses the use of autonomy supportive coaching behaviours for enhancing their athlete’s motivation, their actual behaviours are ultimately governed by the immediate context in which they are coaching. When a coach’s own interests are related to the performance of their athlete, they are likely to feel under pressure. Under such conditions, the coach is more prone to taking on the characteristics of a controlling coach. (Flink, Boggiano & Barrett, 1990) >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Elite adolescent student-athletes reported lower levels of subjective well-being than other adolescents because they often lacked the necessary psychosocial support Several studies have shown higher levels of well-being in individuals who evolve in an autonomy supportive context (e.g., Gagné, Ryan & Bargmann, 2003). In the same way, an autonomy supportive coaching style has been associated with well-being in athletes (e.g., Adie, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2008). Coaching style is linked to the well-being of athletes through the satisfaction of the three psychological needs (i.e., competence, autonomy, relatedness). >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Research has shown it is possible that controlling motives (low autonomy) can be useful for the success of some athletes. Hagger and Chatzisarantis (2005) state that it is possible for athletes (from a team sport) to forego personal choice and volition because the group respected and had internalised the instructions and autocratic style of the coach. Essentially, they suggest that intrinsic motivation can flourish in a team where autonomy support does not exist. This raises an interesting perspective and questions why coaches are predominantly encouraged to use autonomy supportive behaviours within their coaching. It also suggests that athletes can be successful regardless of form of motivation, and degree of internalisation. >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Coaches can ensure needs satisfaction for athletes, but can also damage personal satisfaction in allowing an athlete to feel motivated towards team success. >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY My future research directions  Athlete experiences, perceptions of coaching behaviour  Coaches understanding of athlete motivation  Impact of coach on athlete growth, development, success and long-term well-being  Antecedents of coaching behaviours  Impact of other social factors on athlete motivation  Exploration of global, contextual and situational motivation >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching

>>UNITEC INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY References Amorose, A.J. & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-Supportive Coaching and Self-Determined Motivation in High School and College Athletes: A Test of Self-Determination Theory, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, Deci., E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1980). The Empirical Exploration of Intrinsic Motivation Processes, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press: New York, Flink, C., Boggiano, A.K. & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling Teaching Strategies: Undermining Children’s Self Determination and Performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 916–924. Mageau, G.A. & Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The Coach-Athlete Relationship: A Motivational Model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development and Wellbeing, American Psychologist, 55, >>DEPARTMENT OF SPORT Athlete Motivation: Implications for Coaching